DBWI: Hanoverian Kings

You mean if all Catholics were removed from the line of succession after Queen Anne? Now that's interesting, a German English royal family... the English would probably hate King George as much as the Protestants hated James VIII. But now they're in personal union with an electorate in the HRE...

(OOC: He'd be "James VIII", not "James III", because the rule is that the monarch takes the higher number from England or Scotland. It's basically a [suspicious] coincidence that the higher number has always been the English number.)
 
Hmm, well that could lead to an earlier and more succesful rise of the English Parliament. Still it seems a stretvh for the prickly English to invite a German to the throne.

I could see a long civil war, perhaps it would result in aq Catholic kingdom of Irelaqnd under the Stuarts and a protestant Britain ruled by an aristocratic parliament in the name of an absentee king?

Still a personal union would surely lead to England being drawn into HRE affairs.
 
Would they have attempted to impose the German language upon Great Britain? I doubt that they, the first few generations of kings at any rate, would wish to learn English.


(OCC: wasn't this DBWI done earlier this year?)
 
Would they have attempted to impose the German language upon Great Britain? I doubt that they, the first few generations of kings at any rate, would wish to learn English.

Could they do that? At any rate, they're not going to stop the masses from speaking English, even if German becomes the new language of aristocracy.
 

Thande

Donor
You mean if all Catholics were removed from the line of succession after Queen Anne? Now that's interesting, a German English royal family... the English would probably hate King George as much as the Protestants hated James VIII. But now they're in personal union with an electorate in the HRE...

(OOC: He'd be "James VIII", not "James III", because the rule is that the monarch takes the higher number from England or Scotland. It's basically a [suspicious] coincidence that the higher number has always been the English number.)

OOC: Not true, we always use the English number in England and the Scottish number in Scotland. For instance, James II was "James II and VII" or just "James II" in England, but if you look at any Scottish painting of him he's called "James VII". The Jacobite claimants were usually referred to as James III, Charles III and Henry IX respectively.
 
I think we're being a bit too short-sighted with this one - there are plenty of implications for the course of history if there were no openly Catholic kings in the 18th Century. Catholic enfranchisement would definitely be delayed, for one thing. And what about Ireland?

OOC: Not true, we always use the English number in England and the Scottish number in Scotland. For instance, James II was "James II and VII" or just "James II" in England, but if you look at any Scottish painting of him he's called "James VII". The Jacobite claimants were usually referred to as James III, Charles III and Henry IX respectively.
(OOC: That's because James II and VII came before the Act of Union - so in England he's referred to as James II and in Scotland as James VII. The Old Pretender was/is called James III in England because that's how he styled himself: as he didn't recognise Queen Anne as the legitimate monarch, he didn't regard the Act of Union as legit either and continued to claim the separate thrones of the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. As in this TL it's implicit that James ended up being worked into the line of succession to become King after Anne's death - which Anne even wanted to do in OTL because she hated George more than she hated James - then James would have to recognise that she was the legit Queen and therefore uphold the Act of Union, and so he would then become James VIII of Great Britain (as opposed to James III of England and VIII of Scotland).

Wow, I just schooled a Briton on the monarchy :p :D)
 
(OOC: He'd be "James VIII", not "James III", because the rule is that the monarch takes the higher number from England or Scotland. It's basically a [suspicious] coincidence that the higher number has always been the English number.)


(OOC: That rule only really came in recently since it only would have affected Queen Elizabeth II. There was a bit of a hubris in Scotland about her being Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth I. Quite a bit of vandalising Post boxes with EIIR on them. Post boxes in Scotland now only have a crown on them =])
 
(OOC: That rule only really came in recently since it only would have affected Queen Elizabeth II. There was a bit of a hubris in Scotland about her being Elizabeth II instead of Elizabeth I. Quite a bit of vandalising Post boxes with EIIR on them. Post boxes in Scotland now only have a crown on them =])
(OOC: What about Edward VII and Edward VIII, and William IV? They would have been Edward I, Edward II and William III respectively by Scottish counting.)
 
(OOC: What about Edward VII and Edward VIII, and William IV? They would have been Edward I, Edward II and William III respectively by Scottish counting.)


(OOC: I meant that the actual rule was brought in only in the 50's when someone tried to sue the Queen. Before it the English just bossed us around and did what they wanted =p Also we've had both a King William and technically a King Edward before. But that was Edward Balliol and he sucked =])

(OOC: And since we kinda hijacked the thread...)

Surely getting rid of James would mean a lot of trouble in the Scotland and the Highlands, especially with France backing them.
 
(OOC: You know what? I have an idea. How about ITTL the rule is that ALL monarchs with that name of England AND Scotland are counted, instead of the "higher number" rule. So, for example, if there had been four kings of England called Fred and three kings of Scotland called Fred, and none of them had ruled both countries (in which case they'd only be counted once), then if another Fred ascended to the throne of Great Britain he'd be King Fred VIII. Oh, and by the way, for simplicity's sake it's not retroactively applied to past monarchs of England or Scotland - only to monarchs of Great Britain. Sound good? It means that James would still be James VIII.)
 
(OOC: You know what? I have an idea. How about ITTL the rule is that ALL monarchs with that name of England AND Scotland are counted, instead of the "higher number" rule. So, for example, if there had been four kings of England called Fred and three kings of Scotland called Fred, and none of them had ruled both countries (in which case they'd only be counted once), then if another Fred ascended to the throne of Great Britain he'd be King Fred VIII. Oh, and by the way, for simplicity's sake it's not retroactively applied to past monarchs of England or Scotland - only to monarchs of Great Britain. Sound good? It means that James would still be James VIII.)


(OOC: And confuse future historians? Excellent idea! Better than my idea of swallowing some stuff to piss off archaeologists =])
 
Top